From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12729 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2009 14:51:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 12715 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Oct 2009 14:51:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:50:53 +0000 Received: (qmail 5806 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2009 14:50:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 1 Oct 2009 14:50:52 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Signals & single-stepping Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:51:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Mark Kettenis References: <200909301440.n8UEevPb017814@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090930162513.GA10304@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20090930162513.GA10304@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200910011551.19751.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 30 September 2009 17:25:13, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Your patch doesn't reintroduce the problem from the PR, and the new > tests in interrupt.exp pass on x86_64-linux. =A0I would really love > someone else to volunteer to review it though - trap_expected confuses > me horribly. =A0I'd guess this change could lead to hitting (and > displaying) the breakpoint at the current PC a second time, which is > undesirable. Yes, this messes with hit counts, reruns user breakpoint commands, etc. Even some internal breakpoints don't like to be re-hit for no reason. E.g., see linux-thread-db.c:check_event "Cannot get thread event message". I think the issue is that when stepping over a breakpoint, for simplicity, GDB always removes all breakpoints. What if we made it remove only breakpoints at stop_pc? --=20 Pedro Alves